Baez Files 8 Motions In Case

Does anyone know what the state of Florida has to prove in order to successfully prosecute for neglect?
Uhm...that she was neglectful in the care of the child by losing her? Pretty neglectful to "misplace" your child and not call in authorities immediately. In this case, the proof is already there. Caylee cannot be produced to insure her safety and well being.
 
I know that it is difficult fodder to digest while following the absurdities in this case but JB is doing his job as well as any criminal attorney can be expected to do. Here is a link that is very interesting reading about the task of a criminal defense attorney and the fact that he (or she) is defending the integrity of democracy and the justice system.

Don't be mean to me :blowkiss:

It's just interesting to try to get past the indignities and respect JB for the job (TERRIBLE job in my opinion) he has to do. The only thing he would eventually have yet to do is in some way be removed from the case if his personal morals precluded him from giving his client a fair trial.

http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/list/defense.html
 
I think they will let her go, although with an escort or official of some kind (officers? YM? someone trustworthy) cause at the end of the day there is a missing child and if there is a chance she is alive and KC knows where or (more likely) dead and KC could inadvertently lead them....they cant take the chance to say no...


yeah we all know she is full of it, but no one else is - they cant let that small chance slide.

Oh but they will let it slide. NOTHING she's told LE has lead them to anything and the judge will take that into consideration big time. This judge will not allow this motion to go forth period. It just won't happen.
 
I just read the MOTION from JB and it states Caylee has been missing since JUNE 15, 2008. Why can't they get the dates straight? First KC says 6/9/08, then C&G say the 16th, the KFN have different dates on all of the PROMOTIONAL signs.................. Now JB says the 15th............... I do think since this is a very important KEY piece of EVIDENCE in finding a missing child.......... they could get their stories straight.

Does anyone else fiind this strange or am I the only one think this is bizarre? DATES and FACTS do not mesh up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What is wrong with this picture! We still have a MISSING CHILD and more than likely no longer with us and it seems nothing coming from the defense is true just a bunch of mis-truths.................... and PR stunts and a whole lot of BS.
 
Oh, Dutchie...I give credit where it is due to JB. He isn't the brightest attorney to come down the pike with a couple of things he has done, but he is doing his job. In this world, it is unfortunate that we have Defense Lia...uhm...Lawyers...but it is what it is. They are paid to bamboozle, spin, and otherwise use whatever means neccessary to sway the case for their clients. If ever I need one, I am sure I will be delighted if he is crafty. LOL
 
Uhm...that she was neglectful in the care of the child by losing her? Pretty neglectful to "misplace" your child and not call in authorities immediately. In this case, the proof is already there. Caylee cannot be produced to insure her safety and well being.
How does the state prove Casey has "lost" Caylee? Can it order her to produce the child?

I was searching for the legal definition of 'neglect' in the Florida statutes and came across this site that says:

Neglect
Neglect is frequently defined in terms of deprivation of adequate food, clothing, shelter, medical care, or supervision.

The state has to prove that Casey is neglectful. Casey has to prove nothing.

If the state cannot compel Casey to produce her daughter (and maybe it can, I don't know), how does the prosecutor prove she's a victim of neglect?
 
I just read the MOTION from JB and it states Caylee has been missing since JUNE 15, 2008. Why can't they get the dates straight? First KC says 6/9/08, then C&G say the 16th, the KFN have different dates on all of the PROMOTIONAL signs.................. Now JB says the 15th............... I do think since this is a very important KEY piece of EVIDENCE in finding a missing child.......... they could get their stories straight.

Does anyone else fiind this strange or am I the only one think this is bizarre? DATES and FACTS do not mesh up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What is wrong with this picture! We still have a MISSING CHILD and more than likely no longer with us and it seems nothing coming from the defense is true just a bunch of mis-truths.................... and PR stunts and a whole lot of BS.
Here is the thing as I see it anyway: LE has to go by the date first given by CA and Casey even tho they have already proven it was June 15th. (They will use this against Casey.)

JB will now contend that Casey was simply "mistaken" so he has adjusted the missing date already.

Since GA claims he saw her on June 16th, others say it is when she went missing. This is incorrect to assume. We know that the last known independently verified sighting of Caylee was at the nursing center on June 15th on the video and by the staff.
 
I think they will let her go, although with an escort or official of some kind (officers? YM? someone trustworthy) cause at the end of the day there is a missing child and if there is a chance she is alive and KC knows where or (more likely) dead and KC could inadvertently lead them....they cant take the chance to say no...


yeah we all know she is full of it, but no one else is - they cant let that small chance slide.

I loved the report, I think it was wesh, but they state after 82 days Casey NOW has an interest in finding her daughter - so why now????? Whats so different???

Actually, the judge might let Casey move around Orlando - that would be kind of funny - in court, the judge says 'okay, you can search for your daughter' the defense looks all happy, Casey brightens up -the judge continues 'under armed guard ONLY in Orlando.....next motion'

LOL - Casey will ask...but I want to go to PR and Mexico - I need a tan! I look so pale.

Honestly ridiculous!
 
How does the state prove Casey has "lost" Caylee? Can it order her to produce the child?

I was searching for the legal definition of 'neglect' in the Florida statutes and came across this site that says:

Neglect
Neglect is frequently defined in terms of deprivation of adequate food, clothing, shelter, medical care, or supervision.

The state has to prove that Casey is neglectful. Casey has to prove nothing.

If the state cannot compel Casey to produce her daughter (and maybe it can, I don't know), how does the prosecutor prove she's a victim of neglect?
Yes, I do believe they can compel her to produce Caylee or proof she is being taken care.
 
There is a case or investigation pending with the appropriate state agency, and I do think the sole custodial parent can be required to produce her child to be seen or examined or suffer the consequences. As to the charges pending in state court, I think good arguments can be made for neglect. What about the supervision aspect? Remember that Casey has claimed at various times that she knows who had Caylee and even where she was. What about her failure to know anything about her alleged babysitter or how to contact her? That no one lived in the apartment where she routinely dropped her off? That she waited 30 days before involving the appropriate authorities? And that during that thirty days she didn't even look for her? I think this epitomizes neglect.
 
See, I think this depends on the evidence put forward in the Neglect case. If they are going to proceed, the DA has to be so careful what they use, but I believe they can get a "guilty" on neglect, without introducing the possible death issue. Done carefully, they can use the 31 days not reporting, blah, blah, blah, and that LE does not know where Caylee is, and KC did not cooperate, even when CA reported. Does that make sense? (First cup of coffee for the day). That's the discovery that JB is entitled to at this point, IMO.

** edited to add, I finally read the latest motions, and I still think JB is gearing up to cause double jeopardy, by attempting to force murder investigation evidence into the Neglect trial. JMHO.

Thank you for your answer. And yes, your answer makes sense! However, I still think an inditement is coming soon.

I am not a lawyer, but IF LE believes that Caylee is dead, then I just cannot see them going ahead with the neglect charge. In my mind, the questioning by Baez to LE could go to something on this order: As of June 15th when you were called to the Anthony home and found that Caylee had been missing for 31 days, have you been following all leads to locate Caylee? Have you found Caylee? Have you, in your investigation to locate Caylee, found anything to indicate that this neglect you have charged my client with, may have lead to the conclusion that Caylee may be dead?

Would this line of questioning be allowed? Why, or why not? I am honestly asking because I do not know. LE's investigation of Caylee having been neglected and not reported missing for 31 days has lead LE to come across evidence to indicate that little Caylee is indeed dead. I believe she is.

I just cannot think of what questions the judge may or may not allow. The neglect charge and evidence of neglect leads right into what LE has found leading them to believe that Caylee is dead.

I know that LE and the D A know what they are doing and I so support them. Somehow I just feel that a Grand Jury inditement is coming down before a neglect trial will happen. It just seems to me that a broad line of questioning would be allowed as this is a charge of felony neglect that could lead to Baez client being found guilty and sentenced to prison.

(just want to add that I think Casey is a disgusting and vile person and killed Caylee, and I think the Anthony's are disgusting as well)
 
K - here's what I've found: NO published federal FL cases involving a Jose A. Baez as counsel, BUT there is a Jose A. Baez and a Jose Anibal Baez listed in several published cases from NY... so do we know yet if Casey's counsel is also licensed in NY and/or if his middle name is Anibal? Interesting if he were, since WAAAY back when she said folks needed to be also searching NY for Caylee...


I can't find it but he just lost a major case here in central Florida, it was a murder case as well I believe? perhaps Child Abuse? I can't find it atm.
 
There is a case or investigation pending with the appropriate state agency, and I do think the sole custodial parent can be required to produce her child to be seen or examined or suffer the consequences. As to the charges pending in state court, I think good arguments can be made for neglect. What about the supervision aspect? Remember that Casey has claimed at various times that she knows who had Caylee and even where she was. What about her failure to know anything about her alleged babysitter or how to contact her? That no one lived in the apartment where she routinely dropped her off? That she waited 30 days before involving the appropriate authorities? And that during that thirty days she didn't even look for her? I think this epitomizes neglect.

"Your honor, for the safety and well-being of her child, my client has placed her in the care of [insert made-up person here], to protect her from discord in the family home and my client's current inability to provide financially for her needs."

I sure hope the state can require Miss Casey to prove whatever ridiculous statement Baez is planning to make, unless of course by the time the court date comes around she's been charged with murder.
 
Does KC have to answer questions from Judge in this hearing? Directly? I would imagine so, but I don't know.
 
If Judge Strickland has even a passing thought about loaning Miss Casey one of his Get Out of Jail Free cards, I have two words for him:


Andrew Luster.

:clap:

Brilliant! Yes, we all know what Andrew Luster did with his freedom, don't we?
I like Judge Strickland (sp) and I just cannot see him granting this motion!
 
How would that work if the case goes to the GJ, but the date has already been set for the Neglect charges?
 
I posted this in another thread, could use it here too:

119.07 Inspection and copying of records; photographing public records; fees; exemptions.--
(1)(a) Every person who has custody of a public record shall permit the record to be inspected and copied by any person desiring to do so, at any reasonable time, under reasonable conditions, and under supervision by the custodian of the public records.
(b) A custodian of public records or a person having custody of public records may designate another officer or employee of the agency to permit the inspection and copying of public records, but must disclose the identity of the designee to the person requesting to inspect or copy public records.
(c) A custodian of public records and his or her designee must acknowledge requests to inspect or copy records promptly and respond to such requests in good faith. A good faith response includes making reasonable efforts to determine from other officers or employees within the agency whether such a record exists and, if so, the location at which the record can be accessed.
(d) A person who has custody of a public record who asserts that an exemption applies to a part of such record shall redact that portion of the record to which an exemption has been asserted and validly applies, and such person shall produce the remainder of such record for inspection and copying.
(e) If the person who has custody of a public record contends that all or part of the record is exempt from inspection and copying, he or she shall state the basis of the exemption that he or she contends is applicable to the record, including the statutory citation to an exemption created or afforded by statute.
(f) If requested by the person seeking to inspect or copy the record, the custodian of public records shall state in writing and with particularity the reasons for the conclusion that the record is exempt or confidential.
(g) In any civil action in which an exemption to this section is asserted, if the exemption is alleged to exist under or by virtue of s. 119.071(1)(d) or (f), (2)(d),(e), or (f), or (4)(c), the public record or part thereof in question shall be submitted to the court for an inspection in camera. If an exemption is alleged to exist under or by virtue of s. 119.071(2)(c), an inspection in camera is discretionary with the court. If the court finds that the asserted exemption is not applicable, it shall order the public record or part thereof in question to be immediately produced for inspection or copying as requested by the person seeking such access.
(h) Even if an assertion is made by the custodian of public records that a requested record is not a public record subject to public inspection or copying under this subsection, the requested record shall, nevertheless, not be disposed of for a period of 30 days after the date on which a written request to inspect or copy the record was served on or otherwise made to the custodian of public records by the person seeking access to the record. If a civil action is instituted within the 30-day period to enforce the provisions of this section with respect to the requested record, the custodian of public records may not dispose of the record except by order of a court of competent jurisdiction after notice to all affected parties.
(i) The absence of a civil action instituted for the purpose stated in paragraph (g) does not relieve the custodian of public records of the duty to maintain the record as a public record if the record is in fact a public record subject to public inspection and copying under this subsection and does not otherwise excuse or exonerate the custodian of public records from any unauthorized or unlawful disposition of such record.
(2)(a) As an additional means of inspecting or copying public records, a custodian of public records may provide access to public records by remote electronic means, provided exempt or confidential information is not disclosed.
(b) The custodian of public records shall provide safeguards to protect the contents of public records from unauthorized remote electronic access or alteration and to prevent the disclosure or modification of those portions of public records which are exempt or confidential from subsection (1) or s. 24, Art. I of the State Constitution.
(c) Unless otherwise required by law, the custodian of public records may charge a fee for remote electronic access, granted under a contractual arrangement with a user, which fee may include the direct and indirect costs of providing such access. Fees for remote electronic access provided to the general public shall be in accordance with the provisions of this section.
(3)(a) Any person shall have the right of access to public records for the purpose of making photographs of the record while such record is in the possession, custody, and control of the custodian of public records.
(b) This subsection applies to the making of photographs in the conventional sense by use of a camera device to capture images of public records but excludes the duplication of microfilm in the possession of the clerk of the circuit court where a copy of the microfilm may be made available by the clerk.
(c) Photographing public records shall be done under the supervision of the custodian of public records, who may adopt and enforce reasonable rules governing the photographing of such records.
(d) Photographing of public records shall be done in the room where the public records are kept. If, in the judgment of the custodian of public records, this is impossible or impracticable, photographing shall be done in another room or place, as nearly adjacent as possible to the room where the public records are kept, to be determined by the custodian of public records. Where provision of another room or place for photographing is required, the expense of providing the same shall be paid by the person desiring to photograph the public record pursuant to paragraph (4)(e).
(4) The custodian of public records shall furnish a copy or a certified copy of the record upon payment of the fee prescribed by law. If a fee is not prescribed by law, the following fees are authorized:
(a)1. Up to 15 cents per one-sided copy for duplicated copies of not more than 14 inches by 81/2 inches;
2. No more than an additional 5 cents for each two-sided copy; and
3. For all other copies, the actual cost of duplication of the public record.
(b) The charge for copies of county maps or aerial photographs supplied by county constitutional officers may also include a reasonable charge for the labor and overhead associated with their duplication.
(c) An agency may charge up to $1 per copy for a certified copy of a public record.
(d) If the nature or volume of public records requested to be inspected or copied pursuant to this subsection is such as to require extensive use of information technology resources or extensive clerical or supervisory assistance by personnel of the agency involved, or both, the agency may charge, in addition to the actual cost of duplication, a special service charge, which shall be reasonable and shall be based on the cost incurred for such extensive use of information technology resources or the labor cost of the personnel providing the service that is actually incurred by the agency or attributable to the agency for the clerical and supervisory assistance required, or both.
(e)1. Where provision of another room or place is necessary to photograph public records, the expense of providing the same shall be paid by the person desiring to photograph the public records.
2. The custodian of public records may charge the person making the photographs for supervision services at a rate of compensation to be agreed upon by the person desiring to make the photographs and the custodian of public records. If they fail to agree as to the appropriate charge, the charge shall be determined by the custodian of public records.
(5) When ballots are produced under this section for inspection or examination, no persons other than the supervisor of elections or the supervisor's employees shall touch the ballots. If the ballots are being examined before the end of the contest period in s. 102.168, the supervisor of elections shall make a reasonable effort to notify all candidates by telephone or otherwise of the time and place of the inspection or examination. All such candidates, or their representatives, shall be allowed to be present during the inspection or examination.
(6) An exemption contained in this chapter or in any other general or special law shall not limit the access of the Auditor General, the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability, or any state, county, municipal, university, board of community college, school district, or special district internal auditor to public records when such person states in writing that such records are needed for a properly authorized audit, examination, or investigation. Such person shall maintain the exempt or confidential status of that public record and shall be subject to the same penalties as the custodian of that record for public disclosure of such record.
(7) An exemption from this section does not imply an exemption from s. 286.011. The exemption from s. 286.011 must be expressly provided.
(8) The provisions of this section are not intended to expand or limit the provisions of Rule 3.220, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, regarding the right and extent of discovery by the state or by a defendant in a criminal prosecution or in collateral postconviction proceedings. This section may not be used by any inmate as the basis for failing to timely litigate any postconviction action.

I am looking for Rule 3.220 atm

 
Fript~ Maybe you could just put in the part that is applicable here and link to the rest?
 
See, I think this depends on the evidence put forward in the Neglect case. If they are going to proceed, the DA has to be so careful what they use, but I believe they can get a "guilty" on neglect, without introducing the possible death issue. Done carefully, they can use the 31 days not reporting, blah, blah, blah, and that LE does not know where Caylee is, and KC did not cooperate, even when CA reported. Does that make sense? (First cup of coffee for the day). That's the discovery that JB is entitled to at this point, IMO.

** edited to add, I finally read the latest motions, and I still think JB is gearing up to cause double jeopardy, by attempting to force murder investigation evidence into the Neglect trial. JMHO.

They simply cannot go forward on the neglect charges if they intend to indict her for murder. Double jeopardy will attach because the prosecution cannot try her on the one hand solely for neglect and nothing else, and then turn around and try her for murdering the same child in another, seperate trial.

How would that work if the case goes to the GJ, but the date has already been set for the Neglect charges?

They would elevate the charges and reset the date.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
139
Guests online
571
Total visitors
710

Forum statistics

Threads
627,061
Messages
18,537,148
Members
241,172
Latest member
justicefornoah
Back
Top